The government passing the buck for population problem?
-
Mr Wang Bakes Good Karma
Pulling a Fast One
Is Mr Wang done with PM Lee's rally speech yet? Almost. First, let's recap two major trends/policies for Singapore:
(1) Singapore faces the challenge of an ageing population (or so we're told). Current projections show that one in five Singaporeans will be over the age of 65 by 2030. The government therefore wants to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies.
(2) Singapore's economy lacks skilled manpower (or so we're told). The government wants to import huge numbers of foreign talents, to keep the economy going strong.
PM Lee's rally speech is perhaps the first time that the Singapore government has tied Point (1) directly to Point (2). Let's look at the relevant passage:
"Two years ago, we introduced major policy changes to encourage couples to have more babies. So far the results have been very modest. I understand why some Singaporeans do not want to have more children. But I have not given up hope and will continue to think of ways to encourage couples to have more babies.
Let me explain why we need new immigrants. To maintain a population of 4 million, Singapore needs at least 50,000 babies a year. Last year, we had 36,000 babies. This means that we are short by 14,000 babies. No matter how hard we try, it would be hard to produce another 14,000 babies. Hence we need to attract more immigrants."
Something is very wrong with the above reasoning, and no one in the blogosphere seems to have pointed it out yet. So I guess I'll have to do the job again.
This is it - babies are not adults. Adults are not babies. Let's imagine that PM Lee's baby-making incentives had succeeded beyond his wildest dreams and Singaporeans produced 75,000 babies last year. That means we would have 75,000 one-year-old cute little chubbies in Singapore today.
But babies can't work. They don't contribute to the economy. They're not research scientists, engineers, bankers or teachers. That would take another 20 to 25 years to happen.
Meanwhile, we import foreign talent. Let's say A*STAR finds a 40-year-old stem research scientist in the US and imports him into Singapore. He settles here, and because of his valuable skills, immediately starts contributing to the economy. However, he is not a baby.
In 20 or 25 years' time, he will be 60 or 65 years old and would have become one extra member in the senior citizen population for the Singapore government to worry about. In fact, the more we import foreign talent in their 30s and 40s, the greater our future "aging population" problem will become!
Of course, I have also oversimplified. The true dynamics are more complicated. For now, my point is just that PM Lee is talking nonsense here:
Last year, we had 36,000 babies. This means that we are short by 14,000 babies. No matter how hard we try, it would be hard to produce another 14,000 babies. Hence we need to attract more immigrants.
I see his attempt to tie the lack of babies to the immediate need for foreigners as just another sales strategy to convince the Singaporean public about his foreign talent schemes. Furthermore he gets to shift the blame ("See? YOU Singaporeans are not producing enough babies, so I, the Prime Minister need to import foreign talent").
The truth is - babies are not adults. Adults are not babies. PM Lee is surely smart enough to see that. I think that he thinks you're not. Here's another example of his quicksell tactics, from April 2006.
Meanwhile, Singaporeans are getting fooled. Look at poor Ms Lee Pai Ping, writing to the online ST Forum:
Aug 23, 2006
S'poreans have to pay a price for not heeding govt's plea for more babies
I missed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally Speech on television last Sunday.
When I read about it in The Straits Times the next day, a sudden sadness overwhelmed me.
The Singapore government has decided to be more aggressive in attracting immigrants with talents of all kinds to Singapore with the offer of Singapore permanent residence status, once purportedly aimed at graduates, professionals, bankers, lawyers and the like.
What a huge price Singaporeans have to pay for not heeding the government's persistent plea for higher birth rates among its people, and to be less picky about jobs.
I am for the Singapore government's move to import foreign talents to fill the gap and boost the economy by creating job opportunities as entrepreneurs.
But I shrug at the thought that some native Singaporeans, especially the young and educated of marrying age, do not think it their duty to marry and procreate as part of nation-building, and the unemployed who still fuss over jobs, choosing to remain jobless rather than accepting a job below their expectations.
Singaporeans should not be complacent. Nation-building is our utmost duty and responsibility.
Lee Pai Ping (Ms)
Ms Lee Pai Ping, try to understand this. If today we import skilled foreigners in their 30s because we lack Singaporean working adults, then our problem isn't with young, married, childless Singaporean couples today. The problem really happened 30 years ago - when the government was busy telling young couples then to "Stop At Two".
So no need to suffer all that guilt, Pai Ping. The government is to blame. That's what PM Lee doesn't want to tell you. He'd rather just blame you and make you feel bad instead.
Pai Ping isn't the only person who got suckered. Seems like a senior ST columnist also got suckered too. Click here to read the ST editorial of 22 August 2006. There he goes - putting the blame on "career-minded young couples" without kids. Or maybe the Straits Times guy does know the truth, but just wanted to perform one of those "nation-building-press" gymnastic tricks. -
In effect, our gov is just IMPORTING MORE old folks into SIngapore!!
BRILLIANT!!!
Farking BRILLIANT!
If this isn't STUPID, I don't know what is ..... -
Walao this is really LPPL man.,...
-
So what is the right solution? The population explosion predicted 20 years would have happened and Singapore would still be a third world country today. The other option was the stop at 2 campaign. Now we are having problems trying to make up numbers with imported foreign talents. But are we sure we can keep the loyalty of such talents so that they will want to set up roots here? Or are such talents here for the one-off jumpstart of their professional careers? Can we afford single-parent families as the new nucleus of Singapore? Adoption is an option that cannot be disregarded for childless couples. Having one partner in a family is better than having no partner at all.Originally posted by bluelantern:Mr Wang Bakes Good Karma
Pulling a Fast One
Is Mr Wang done with PM Lee's rally speech yet? Almost. First, let's recap two major trends/policies for Singapore:
(1) Singapore faces the challenge of an ageing population (or so we're told). Current projections show that one in five Singaporeans will be over the age of 65 by 2030. The government therefore wants to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies.
(2) Singapore's economy lacks skilled manpower (or so we're told). The government wants to import huge numbers of foreign talents, to keep the economy going strong.
PM Lee's rally speech is perhaps the first time that the Singapore government has tied Point (1) directly to Point (2). Let's look at the relevant passage:
"Two years ago, we introduced major policy changes to encourage couples to have more babies. So far the results have been very modest. I understand why some Singaporeans do not want to have more children. But I have not given up hope and will continue to think of ways to encourage couples to have more babies.
Let me explain why we need new immigrants. To maintain a population of 4 million, Singapore needs at least 50,000 babies a year. Last year, we had 36,000 babies. This means that we are short by 14,000 babies. No matter how hard we try, it would be hard to produce another 14,000 babies. Hence we need to attract more immigrants."
Something is very wrong with the above reasoning, and no one in the blogosphere seems to have pointed it out yet. So I guess I'll have to do the job again.
This is it - babies are not adults. Adults are not babies. Let's imagine that PM Lee's baby-making incentives had succeeded beyond his wildest dreams and Singaporeans produced 75,000 babies last year. That means we would have 75,000 one-year-old cute little chubbies in Singapore today.
But babies can't work. They don't contribute to the economy. They're not research scientists, engineers, bankers or teachers. That would take another 20 to 25 years to happen.
Meanwhile, we import foreign talent. Let's say A*STAR finds a 40-year-old stem research scientist in the US and imports him into Singapore. He settles here, and because of his valuable skills, immediately starts contributing to the economy. However, he is not a baby.
In 20 or 25 years' time, he will be 60 or 65 years old and would have become one extra member in the senior citizen population for the Singapore government to worry about. In fact, the more we import foreign talent in their 30s and 40s, the greater our future "aging population" problem will become!
Of course, I have also oversimplified. The true dynamics are more complicated. For now, my point is just that PM Lee is talking nonsense here:
Last year, we had 36,000 babies. This means that we are short by 14,000 babies. No matter how hard we try, it would be hard to produce another 14,000 babies. Hence we need to attract more immigrants.
I see his attempt to tie the lack of babies to the immediate need for foreigners as just another sales strategy to convince the Singaporean public about his foreign talent schemes. Furthermore he gets to shift the blame ("See? YOU Singaporeans are not producing enough babies, so I, the Prime Minister need to import foreign talent").
The truth is - babies are not adults. Adults are not babies. PM Lee is surely smart enough to see that. I think that he thinks you're not. Here's another example of his quicksell tactics, from April 2006.
Meanwhile, Singaporeans are getting fooled. Look at poor Ms Lee Pai Ping, writing to the online ST Forum:
Aug 23, 2006
S'poreans have to pay a price for not heeding govt's plea for more babies
I missed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally Speech on television last Sunday.
When I read about it in The Straits Times the next day, a sudden sadness overwhelmed me.
The Singapore government has decided to be more aggressive in attracting immigrants with talents of all kinds to Singapore with the offer of Singapore permanent residence status, once purportedly aimed at graduates, professionals, bankers, lawyers and the like.
What a huge price Singaporeans have to pay for not heeding the government's persistent plea for higher birth rates among its people, and to be less picky about jobs.
I am for the Singapore government's move to import foreign talents to fill the gap and boost the economy by creating job opportunities as entrepreneurs.
But I shrug at the thought that some native Singaporeans, especially the young and educated of marrying age, do not think it their duty to marry and procreate as part of nation-building, and the unemployed who still fuss over jobs, choosing to remain jobless rather than accepting a job below their expectations.
Singaporeans should not be complacent. Nation-building is our utmost duty and responsibility.
Lee Pai Ping (Ms)
Ms Lee Pai Ping, try to understand this. If today we import skilled foreigners in their 30s because we lack Singaporean working adults, then our problem isn't with young, married, childless Singaporean couples today. The problem really happened 30 years ago - when the government was busy telling young couples then to "Stop At Two".
So no need to suffer all that guilt, Pai Ping. The government is to blame. That's what PM Lee doesn't want to tell you. He'd rather just blame you and make you feel bad instead.
Pai Ping isn't the only person who got suckered. Seems like a senior ST columnist also got suckered too. Click here to read the ST editorial of 22 August 2006. There he goes - putting the blame on "career-minded young couples" without kids. Or maybe the Straits Times guy does know the truth, but just wanted to perform one of those "nation-building-press" gymnastic tricks. -
hehehe... trying to smoke everybody...
more old people snatching the hospital beds from us in 30yrs time
-
really LPPL
ask for it only..
then for the next few years,
we will be having ang mos with malay/chinese/indian/rojiak singaporean girls..
then we singaporean men..
serve ns to defend our nation while ang mos play with our chicks..
steal our land... steal our chicks.. steal our life.. steal our jobs.. -
maybe you want to take into account the 50-70s now. where will they be 30 years down the road?
-
This is a potential problem alright. But bear in mind that not all imported foreign talent would become our citizens, and not all would choose to retire here. Nevertheless, it would become a problem if even just a small proportion decide to take up citizenship and retire here. One way to overcome this is to make the foreign talents take care of their own health and work till 70 or older.
-
Our sg gov cant even solve our sporeans' aging problem in term of housing n medical now, here come the FTs's problems in the next 20yrs when our children will hve to bear with the consequence of these shit PRs.
Can anyone telling me wat is our sg gov has in mind to import these so called FTs to be citizens who will create the same problem now we r facing with??? -
not oni they need to work till 70, more likely we'll be the ones working non-stop. probably even on the day we die.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:This is a potential problem alright. But bear in mind that not all imported foreign talent would become our citizens, and not all would choose to retire here. Nevertheless, it would become a problem if even just a small proportion decide to take up citizenship and retire here. One way to overcome this is to make the foreign talents take care of their own health and work till 70 or older.
these FTs probably will be enjoying their retirement back in their homeland.
-
I haven't watched, heard, for read the speech but can the argument not be made increased immigration will encourage people to setup families here?
-
After serving three terms in office, the poodle will be paid monthly salaries till they die.
So, why the present policy makers worry about the immigrant cum PR problem in the next 20 years when they will be retired, stayed in another countries and get paid by STUPID SINGAPOREANS WHO WILL RETIRED AT 85 like SMM.
The PR, as illustrated in ST forums, are paid with good money, treat like king and queens, in which, in the end, they treat the locals like second class people.
Only Singapore would be so stupid to invite a foreigner to govern their own country. -
they pay themselves 100k a month and this is the best solution they can come up with.
-
Vote for them one more term, and indeed, we'll be in deep crap!
-
Already told you all earlier on.
The babies of today will be the old foggies of tomorrow.
And 30 years down the road, they will spinning the same old yarn about " We have 4 million senior citizens and we need to import more FTs to come support these 4 million senior citizens because we jolly well will not take care of them and it's all you Singaporeans fault for not having enough babies." -
Nevertheless, you'll still need the overall birth rate to go quite some way above replacement level. No point really if the FTs just marry locals or bring their own families or spouses but they have only less than two children per couple.Originally posted by lwflee:I haven't watched, heard, for read the speech but can the argument not be made increased immigration will encourage people to setup families here? -
Does anybody know why there was the "Stop At Two" policy back in the early years?
Well, back then they were afraid that people over-produced, and those who can't afford to maintain their children may end up turning to gov for help.
All these while, they are either afraid of looking after the young or the old. First it was too many babies/kids, now they are afraid of too many aged.
It seems the only thing they are not afraid of is lots of money from our economy.
Right now, they say FTs and imigration is good. But I tell you, it will end up like Casino; initially NO, then when avenues for revenue becomes exhausted, YES to casinos.
All these FTs now, wouldn' they also become old and aged?? And do you believe all of them will stay, and that they will all turn out like the fine example in todays' Sunday Times???
It's going to be another LPPL policy. It's not even a solution, but another problem in itself. Look at the all the low-life PRCs who are making a mockery of our immigration system by getting married for the sake of a PR status!
FTs are just here for the SGD$. And for the sake of a few more new citizens through immigration, they are willing to handle the myriad of vice, fraud and crime largely contributed by PRCs.
I hardly see any logic.... -
Hence a two pronged approach could be feasible. Maybe couples with at least 2x young kids ought to be given extra 'points' in naturalisation? At the same time, tax rebates, education rebates, etc to be given to kids?Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Nevertheless, you'll still need the overall birth rate to go quite some way above replacement level. No point really if the FTs just marry locals or bring their own families or spouses but they have only less than two children per couple.
In this way, increased immigration becomes part of the solution. -
know liao oso no use....
-
Well, I'm afraid most Singaporeans would just perceive that as yet another example of unfair treatment from the government. Family-friendly policies should apply across the board, not just for new immigrants with families in tow.Originally posted by lwflee:Hence a two pronged approach could be feasible. Maybe couples with at least 2x young kids ought to be given extra 'points' in naturalisation? At the same time, tax rebates, education rebates, etc to be given to kids?
In this way, increased immigration becomes part of the solution. -
Aiya Is all our fault
Government always not at fault. As long you are the Gahmen you are never at fault. If you are their family you are also not at fault. Everything they do are right. Anything we do all wrong. Say what no white horse system. All BULLSHIT. I think after i finished my studies in oversea I will just be the 800 ppl who give up citizenship every year. -
KISS - "Keep It Simple Stupid" - this is the rudest way to wake the Government.
The Singaporean population has been complaining about the cost burden of living in Singapore, which besides seeing the wages shrinking - with the last pay and CPF cuts; long term wage earning ability is also reduced with employment contracts revised to short-term conditions.
With a shrinking of the wages, we are now being assaulted by another round of price increases in fuel, transport costs, utilities and nearly all other essential services.
These have widened the income gap, and was a key feature of an ariticle written by Mr Brown, which caused the Singapore Government to " Brown-Out ".
The TRUTH to the Population Problem is the Cost of Living in Singapore - and Mr Brown's suggestion that the Singapore Government has broken the " Social Contract " with Singaporeans have certainly touched their raw nerve.
With the " Cost of Living " spiralling out of control, it has become too sensitive an issue to be allowed free and easy access.
SingaporeÂ’s social contract under strain
Financial Times
August 19, 2006
By John Burton in SINGAPORE
WHEN Today, a state-owned newspaper, recently published a satirical article by a popular internet blogger known as Mr Brown, the Singapore government was not amused.
The information ministry sent a sharp letter saying his views could undermine national stability. The editors quickly decided to suspend Mr Brown's regular column indefinitely.
The incident appeared to contradict promises by Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, to promote more political discussion in the tightly ruled city-state. “We are building a more open society and encouraging freer debate,” he claimed in a National Day speech last week.
The reason the offending column hit a raw nerve was that it complained about the rising cost of living when the income gap is widening.
The social contract under which Singaporeans gave up certain civil liberties in return for prosperity is under threat.
There are other signs of official nervousness. New conditions for the circulation of foreign publications were recently imposed. Singapore banned outdoor demonstrations by international non-governmental organisations during next month's IMF/World Bank annual meeting. And Chee Juan-soon, a leading opposition leader, is being tried for alleged defamation against top government leaders and speaking in public without a police permit.
The moves come after the long-ruling People's Action party suffered an 8-percentage-point drop in support during May's general election, which focused on widening income disparity.
Shortly after the election, the government revealed that the income gap was bigger than at any time since independence in 1965. The bottom 30 per cent of households have seen incomes fall since 2000.
Singapore's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, places the city state at 105th in the world, between Papua New Guinea and Argentina, based on data from the latest United Nations Development Programme report.
A two-speed, dual economy appears to be emerging in Singapore,” said Citigroup.
“Globalisation, for a small open economy, may be having a disproportionately large impact.”
The government has allowed some forms of freer _expression, particularly in terms of theatre performances because they attract a small audience.
The recent Singapore Theatre Festival included several plays that were critical of the political and social climate.
“The younger generation of journalists is trying to challenge the government and push the envelope on what it can report,” said a senior editor with Singapore Press Holdings, which publishes most of the local newspapers.
But the government is pushing back, warning journalists not to overstep what it calls “out-of-bounds markers”.
The information ministry said Mr Brown was “exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the government's standing with the electorate,” when instead he “should offer constructive criticism and alternatives”.
Singapore has tightened regulations this month on leading international publications, including the Financial Times, the International Herald Tribune, Time, Newsweek and the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER).
The rules, which already apply to the Wall Street Journal Asia, require the publications to post a security deposit of S$200,000 (US$127,000, €99,000, £68,000) and appoint a representative in Singapore who could be sued, and gives the government the power to restrict their circulation. Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based press freedom group, said the rules were meant to intimidate the international media from reporting on Singapore's domestic affairs and encourage them to practise self-censorship.
The information ministry said the press act “serves to reinforce the government's consistent position that it is a privilege, and not a right, for foreign newspapers to circulate in Singapore.”
“They do so as foreign observers of the local scene and should not interfere in the domestic politics of Singapore.”
The move came shortly after FEER published an interview with Dr Chee, whom it called Singapore's “martyr”, and ahead of the IMF/World Bank meeting in Singapore next month, the biggest international conference it has ever held.
Dr Chee, who promotes the idea of civil disobedience, had suggested he might use the occasion to stage public protests.
Under an agreement with the IMF and World Bank, Singapore pledged to allow an approved list of NGOs to take part in the proceedings. But it recently said the NGOs would have to get police permits to gain access to the lobby of the conference centre, where they can “gather and engage” delegates.